Can Arcane Casters Heal? Disrupt Undead?

[irdeggman]

Irdeggman, Note that the "conjuration" healing is a mislabeling of the spell. Healing spells originated in necromancy, and if you look up the definition of necromancy, you will discover that a spell which maniuplates life energies, to harm OR to heal, is a necromantic one. The gods are lying to you. Probably to prevent mages from researching the spell.

You can call ANYthing conjuration if you try hard enough, and WoTC is starting to do just that. Now they have "conjured" fireballs and "conjured" positive energy touches. That doesn't mean that there aren't the more traditional evoked fireballs and necromantic positive energy spells.

But WotC is being pretty consistent in the use of conjuring (healing) in 3.5. So whether or not you (or I) agree it is the RAW.

Changing schools is something that was very significant in 3/3.5. The number of schools was absolutely reduced to 8 (and universal - for those that aren't in one of the 8). This is of paramount importance to understanding (or at least pretending to) the 3.5 magic system.

Even divine spells belong to a school.

I find the use of conjuring a whole lot more consistent in 3.5 then any of the schools were in 2nd ed.

The statement that it is the wrong school reminds me of the repetative issue in 2nd ed where so very many people kept trying to place Invisibility in the Abjuration or Transformation school - basically somewhere other than Illusion even though TSR/Wotc kept on insisting that it was an Illusion spell. How many people knew players whose characters tried to research a non-Illusion version of Invisibility in 2nd ed?

 

[irdeggman]

PHB 3.5 pg 209

An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort, but it must make a successful Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1d4+1 round per caster level.

Since when is damage the same as healing?

 

[Mark Causey]

When negative energy damage is considering healing for undead. To wit:

Inflict Light Wounds
Necromancy

Level: Clr 1, Destruction 1

Components: V, S

Casting Time: 1 standard action

Range: Touch

Target: Creature touched

Duration: Instantaneous

Saving Throw: Will half

Spell Resistance: Yes

When laying your hand upon a creature, you channel negative energy that deals 1d8 points of damage +1 point per caster level (maximum +5).

Since undead are powered by negative energy, this spell cures such a creature of a like amount of damage, rather than harming it.

 

[werk]

When negative energy damage is considering healing for undead.

No... I know how this seems to 'make sense' to you, but it's not established in the rules, so it doesn't work that way.

Enervation, for instance, doesn't heal undead, it grants temporary hp. And Ghoul Touch doesn't do anything to undead.

 

[ARandomGod]

Pretty specific terminology to me "only 1 point". Especially since not all of the cure spells are limited to a maximum of +5 (they go from a max of +5 to a max of +35 depending on the spell).

It could be argued that it was meant to be the other way. Semantics are easy to argue.

PHB 3.5 pg 209

An undead creature you touch takes no damage of either sort, but it must make a successful Will saving throw or flee as if panicked for 1d4+1 round per caster level.

Takes no damage of either sort, check... recieves no healing... nope, it doesn't say.
(I'm not saying that it's SUPPOSED to get healing, I'm agreeing that the spell doesn't SAY.)

But WotC is being pretty consistent in the use of conjuring (healing) in 3.5. So whether or not you (or I) agree it is the RAW.

True, but RAW is silly and RAW is semantics, and RAW really doesn't say anything about chill touch not healing undead touched... There are a number of other things that RAW does specifically (semantically) say that aren't actually how the rules are meant. For instance, it's quite easy in 3.5 to get the benifit of Precise Shot without taking the feat. By RAW all you have to do is make certain the target (edit: and those in melee combat with the target, of course!) isn't friendly to you, so be an utter bastard and you'll always have the effective feat. That's not the only example, just my current favorite.

Changing schools is something that was very significant in 3/3.5. The number of schools was absolutely reduced to 8 (and universal - for those that aren't in one of the 8). This is of paramount importance to understanding (or at least pretending to) the 3.5 magic system.

Even divine spells belong to a school.

Significant? Sure. Consistent? No. Sure, they've changed all healing from necromancy (where it started) to conjuraction. But they've changed a LOT of spells to conjuration. And their justification was either weak or fairly universal. Most of the spells in the PHB could be argueably stated as Conjuration... and WoTC is making several spells with effects that traditionally were in other schools (traditionally in 3.X) into conjuration spells.

How many people knew players whose characters tried to research a non-Illusion version of Invisibility in 2nd ed?

I don't know... probably a good number. However really 2nd edition was pretty consistent in situations like this. They didn't switch schools around. They never conjured necromantic (life) energy, nor did they conjure fireballs (it's been done in 3.X!) So however many tried it then, it's simpler now. I suggest you conjure a light shield that bends light around you, making you invisible. So that you can see, have an additional component conjure an image of what's going on outside the shield into the shield. Easy, and non-illusion. Clearly conjuration, because I said CONJURE it! Just like they say you can conjure necromantic energy and conjure fire/electricity/frost/etc. You don't have to necro or evoke anymore!

 

[frankthedm]

IMC I ruled that Disrupt Undead can be used to heal living creatures. Didn't unbalance things much.

It would if you let the PCs stock up on wands of it. If the effect is only when cast by a living caster[not an item], then it won't hurt balance too much.

As far as ranged healing goes, i have clerics with the sun domain cast Cure "N" Wounds as short ranged range touch instead of 1/day unfairly destroy undead. Paladins who worship sun gods also get thier cure light wounds with a short range if they want it.

Arcane casters get a short range 0th level Cauterize[evocation] [stops bleeding and stabilizes like a cure minor wounds and hurts like a *****]

 

[ARandomGod]

You don't have to necro or evoke anymore!

PS, I personally suggest that you take conjuration as a specialist school, exclude necromancy and evokation, and simply research conjuration spells of any necro or evoker spell you want. It's clearly possible looking at new spells that have come out. And even traditionally possible... as you pointed out, making necromancy into conjuration is one of the first things WoTC did when they bought the product.

 

[Mark Causey]

No... I know how this seems to 'make sense' to you, but it's not established in the rules, so it doesn't work that way.

Enervation, for instance, doesn't heal undead, it grants temporary hp. And Ghoul Touch doesn't do anything to undead.

Per definition of the Undead type in the SRD:

—Cannot heal damage on its own if it has no Intelligence score, although it can be healed. Negative energy (such as an inflict spell) can heal undead creatures. The fast healing special quality works regardless of the creature’s Intelligence score.

 

[ThirdWizard]

Per definition of the Undead type in the SRD:

Note the "can" wording. Not the "does" wording.

Inflict spells use negative energy and heal undead. Enervation uses negative energy and does not heal undead.

 

[JiffyPopTart]

The 7th level wizard spell "Limited Wish" explicity states it can be used to recreate any spell up to 5th level from a non-excluded school, which includes Cure Critical Wounds for most wizards.

One could easily argue you should be able to create a very specific version of Limited Wish cast at a lower level (lets argue 6th, but 5th is probably more appropriate for only having ONE use) that ONLY includes Cure Critical Wounds. Its a very small step, really.

DS